> Subject: How to crush Democrats' dumbest (but pervasive) gun control argument
>
> FYI (copy below):
> http://wolffiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-to-crush-Democrats-dumb-gun-control.html
> ************************************************************
> "In truth, attempts to regulate the civilian possession of
> firearms have five political functions. They increase
> citizen reliance on government and tolerance of increased
> police powers and abuse; help prevent opposition to the
> government; facilitate repressive action by government and
> its allies; lessen the pressure for major or radical reform;
> and can be selectively enforced against those perceived to
> be a threat to government."
> ~gun-rights expert, Professor Raymond Kessler, J.D.
> ************************************************************
> Wednesday, January 16, 2013
> How to crush Democrats' dumbest (but pervasive) gun control argument
>
> Let's be clear. The Second Amendment was not written to
> protect your right to kill a deer. It was designed to
> protect your right to defend yourself against all enemies,
> foreign and domestic. Your right to bear arms is the only
> guarantor of your other rights to life, liberty, property,
> speech and all the rest.
>
> The never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste Left is in assault mode
> on your Second Amendment rights. These gun grabbers think
> they're so clever with this line of questioning which
> (frustratingly) seems to stump the unprepared:
>
> The Framers didn't write the Second Amendment with
> AR-15's in mind. Where do you stop? Should citizens
> be allowed to have nuclear weapons?
>
> This is a hanging curve ball just waiting for you to crush
> it.
>
> First of all, remind Democrats that the Framers didn't write
> the First Amendment with cable television, Internet
> communications or even the telegraph in mind. Should we
> limit the press's freedom of speech to the movable type
> printing press which was the primary means of mass
> communication at the time of the Framers?
>
> More importantly, don't let the nuclear weapon ruse
> intimidate you. [For fun, pronounce it /nuke 'yuh ler/ just
> to show 'em who's boss.] The limits of the Second Amendment
> is a fair question that deserves an answer. It's simple:
> Law-abiding, free people should have the right to arm
> themselves with whatever weapons their government would use
> against them.
>
> If the world is sufficiently dangerous that the police
> require semi-automatic rifles with large-capacity magazines,
> then do not the free citizens who are sovereign over the
> police and who also live in the same dangerous world deserve
> to similarly protect themselves from it? In fact, are not
> the citizens -- not the police -- always the first ones who
> are forced to face those dangers?
>
> There is no justification for the public servant police to
> be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve
> ... unless ... the government's intention is to be more
> powerful than the people. When the police are the only ones
> armed, then it is a police state.
>
> Nah, that's crazy talk. The next thing you know, you'll
> claim that even the Department of Education is arming
> itself. Oh crap...
>
>
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2638/6038 - Release Date: 01/16/13
